Richard Dawkins VS The Pope...

[LDN]

Knowing PH, this may well have already been mentioned but I've not seen anything...

Talk of legal action for the Pope's cover-up of sexual abuse on minors - when he visits the UK in September,

"Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/art...

Probably a stunt of some sort but never-the-less an interesting and bold idea. Word is that many are willing to contribute toward any bills for legal action.

[LDN]

To be fair, he never said "I will arrest the pope" - that was the Times making a controversial headline. I know it's very British to be cyncical and suspicious of someones motives but most seem to be more bothered about his intentions rather than the popes cover for child abuse - and so it stands, Dawkins raises a good point. Can the pope not be dealt with in the same way Pinochet was...

Also, I was under the impression that Dawkins does do a lot for charity :/ I might be wrong.

[LDN]

Blue Meanie said:

ShadownINja said:

That might answer one question I have, "What is the point in Dawkins?" He's turning into a really tedious tosser. He might be right. There might be no god. I'm sure he's infinitely more intelligent and knowledgeable than me but he's tediously smarmy. The Gordon Brown of the scientific world. Smarmy... yet miserable inside.

Y'know... why doesn't Dawkins actually do something useful for a change instead of whingeing about the same old things. Go to Africa, rescue orphans or pay for a school to be built or donate a wad (or even just time) to Macmillan Cancer Support.

Yes, because this is about Dawkins isn't it, and not the fact that someone who knowingly covered up child abuse would be visiting the UK, and Dawkins said he should be prosecuted.

Exactly.

[LDN]

Blue Meanie said:

smn159 said:

Busa_Rush said:

Halb said:

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

Dawkins=moron who is trying to pick a fight with the pope because he disagrees with him about religion, this has nothing to do with child abuse.

If you knew anything about the Catholics then you'd know that the Pope has very little to do with anything which happens on the ground level. Same as the CofE or any commercial organisation . .. how much does the the Chairman of the BBC know about the activities of the make up artists ?

The accusation is that the Ratzinger DID know, and chose to put the protection of the church and its assets ahead of the protection of the abused children.

You don't think that this is worthy of criminal investigation, and appropriate punishment if he's guilty?

As I said earlier, why peopler are focussing on Dawkins, rather than the vatican cover up is beyond me.

I agree, very odd :/ All that's being said is that there should be a trial. And I agree, there bloomin' well should. Simple as that. People seem quick to lay into Dawkins who IMO, has supported a valid stand point that has been raised by others. As stated, the newspaper article headline is out of context; suprise suprise.

[LDN]

ludo said:

Blue Meanie said:

Can anyone actually point to something that Dawkins does as self-publicity, other than either promote his books, or as part of a debate series?

Not promoting any books; just getting himself into the papers and trying to annoy Christians.

Good man!

[LDN]

s2art said:

ludo said:

Well perhaps that is because I have no problem with the views he holds, and that my objection is the needlessly offensive and arrogant manner in which he makes his point.

Strange. Whenever I have seen Dawkins criticising religion he was most reasonable and polite. Do you have examples of when he is otherwise?

I agree; I once saw him on a late night show addressing a room full of religious teens - it was some eductaional thing. People were quite rude and offensive throughout but he remained calm the whole time and with logic alone, dismantled their standpoint. It was so embarassing that I almost felt sorry for them... almost

[LDN]

fbrs said:

ludo said:

How about saying that religious people are deluded?

the mass irrational belief in an invisible creator against all observable evidence, itself incompatible with many other versions of the same 'belief'? yeah i'd say delusion pretty much nails it.

Yup.

[LDN]

ludo said:

outreach.

How about www.faithfreedom.org

[LDN]

Blue Meanie said:

ludo said:

[
Give the attrition loop a rest, I have already explained this point more than once. There are ample quote available attributed to Jesus that indicate that there are elements of the OT that are superceded in the new, violence is one of them. There are also quotes to suggest that if we follow the golden rule we are in accordance with the spirit of the OT (and hence are not ignoring it).

ETA: I would have thought the bit about turning the other cheek instead of an eye for an eye was pretty straightforward, apparently not.

Edited by ludo on Tuesday 13th April 20:47

No, I won't. You are insiting that the OT quotes don;t matter, and have been overwritten, and yet I am simply waiting for you to show where in the bible it says to do this. I have given quotes showing that the OT is NOT to be ignored.

I wouldn't bother... debating with a religious person is pointless; they have no need to apply logic and also have 'interpretation' on their side which means infinite 'get out clauses.

Relax

[LDN]

Blue Meanie said:

OUCH!

Love it.